FS-1 Quashnet River Stakeholder
Summit
Agenda Item 1. Introductions, Goals of Meeting, Groundrules, and Agenda Review: Mr. Field convened the meeting at 8:20 A.M. He reviewed the groundrules and the agenda and asked the attendees to introduce themselves. He stated that the goal of the meeting was to reach consensus on a preferred alternative or alternatives in order to move forward. Ms. Balkus stated that a meeting was scheduled for this Friday (September 25, 1998) at which the Air Staff will be briefing the Congressional Delegation of Massachusetts. One of the items to be discussed will be the direction the Air Force is going with the Towns of Mashpee and Falmouth with regard to the cranberry issue. Ms. Balkus asked for the continued cooperation of everyone involved in this process and expressed her hope that through discussions today a consensus could be reached on a preferred approach. Ms. Balkus then provided an overview of the meeting. She noted that new field measurement data would be presented, that a decision tree had been developed to help determine how to evaluate the alternatives, and that there would be discussions regarding the modified alternatives and next steps. Ms. Caffyn asked what was the date of the data. She commented that there was new information coming in that could include other contamination entering the bog area. Mr. Szymoniak noted that Ms. Caffyn was referring to the Briarwood investigation, which he said was currently outside of the scope of the bog separation project. He also noted that the plume was not affecting the bogs. Mr. Szymoniak pointed to the Briarwood plume on the map. He stated that a key surface water location was upgradient of the surface water of the bogs, and it had been non-detect for a year. Ms. Caffyn commented that information regarding any new plume data in that general vicinity needed to be included. She said that it was necessary to have information about any plume headed toward the area where the contours or berms would be changed. She expressed the need for updated data when considering these plans in order to avoid implementing a plan that would need to be modified at a later date. Mr. Szymoniak stated that this would be considered. He reiterated that currently the Briarwood plume did not affect the bogs. He stated that a report summarizing that information had been completed and would be submitted when all the data was compiled. Agenda Item 2. New Field Measurement Data: Mr. Szymoniak displayed a map of the Quashnet River ethylene dibromide (EDB) surface water sampling concentrations (see attachment #1, which includes all slides in this presentation). He pointed to the location of the following bogs: K1, K2, K3, K4, K5, and K6. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the K1 bog needed to be non-detect and currently there was EDB upwelling in that bog. He noted that this affected the west tributary, which the fisheries people want to maintain as a fish pathway. He also said that last week the channel was temporarily blocked in order to see what would happen with the flow concentrations and the EDB levels; the blockage forced all the flow from K1 through the west tributary. Mr. Szymoniak stated that prior to the channel being blocked, the flow was going into the perimeter dikes. He stated that the intent was to get more flow into the bog to see if the surface water at station 36SW0010 could reach non-detect, which it did last week. Mr. Szymoniak stated that flow measurements were taken at stations 36SW0002, 36SW0200, and 36SW0201. He reported that the velocity measurement at 36SW0002 was 0.4 feet per second (ft/s) and the flow was 3.1 cubic feet per second (cfs). He said that the velocity measurements at 36SW0200 were 1.9 ft/s and the flow was 1.2 cfs. Mr. Szymoniak stated that Mr. Steve Hurley, from the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MDFW), would like to see approximately one to two cfs in the channel in order to keep the suspended solids from affecting the flow rate. He then reported that the velocity measurements at 36SW0201 were 0.9 ft/s and the flow was 0.3 cfs. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the river in this area was disconnected and that flow from three different places made up the water in the bog. He said that there were still two areas of high concentration that were discharging along the edge of the bog; when that mixed with the different flows, the concentrations remained steady at approximately 0.04 ppb. Mr. Szymoniak asked if there were any questions on the field measurements. There were none. Mr. Szymoniak then displayed a slide of the Decision Tree. He expressed the importance of knowing the locations of the bogs and the stations when using this diagram. Mr. Szymoniak noted that SW0010 was the outfall of the K1 bog, SW0001 was the outfall of all the bogs and SW0003 was the outlet from K4, K3, and K2. He then explained the Decision Tree. Mr. Szymoniak noted that the underlying assumption was that there was no EDB upwelling into the bogs and all the upwelling was occurring along the perimeters of the bogs in the perimeter swales. He stated that the first step was to validate this assumption by blocking the bog channels and forcing all the EDB to migrate back to the eastern perimeter ditch. Mr. Szymoniak noted that the Decision Tree represented the logic used to build the alternatives. He then asked if there were any questions. Questions and Comments: Mr. Hurley commented that it appeared as though a decision had been made to treat any contamination in that area. Mr. Szymoniak replied that treatment was the only way to achieve non-detect. Mr. Hurley asked what treatment would be implemented. Mr. Szymoniak replied that either iron filings passive treatment or an active treatment using granular activated carbon (GAC) would be implemented. Ms. Balkus spoke about the intercept and treat option. She said that if interception was chosen there would be a question of whether the water could be infiltrated back on the surface somewhere or whether it could be discharged, in which case National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) would need to be taken into consideration. She stated that if that were not possible, it would need to be treated to at least the MCL. Mr. Hurley asked if the treatment was part of the point source discharge of EDB. Mr. Szymoniak replied that if the Air Force were to collect the water, a NPDES permit would be needed. He stated that if the water were collected the level of contamination would have to be reduced. Ms. Miles clarified that the US EPA flagged this as an issue and suggested that the Air Force talk to US EPA experts in this field. She asked whether the Air Force had any discussions with Mr. Dave Pincumbe, from the US EPA. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the Air Force had not spoken to someone specifically, however, that was an option. He noted that if the water were picked up there was an obligation to treat it or to reduce the level. Ms. Miles suggested considering different ways of collecting the water that could possibly avoid "tripping" that NPDES trigger. Mr. Szymoniak stated that there was an opportunity, if the sheet piles or berms were used, to avoid affecting the current channels, which did not, however, eliminate the issue of perception. Mr. Field summarized that the question of whether or not intercepted water would be treated had not yet been answered. Mr. Szymoniak replied that all of the alternatives assumed that there will be treatment at some level. Ms. Balkus clarified that as each alternative was explained it would be noted whether or not the alternative included treatment. She added that the K1 bog was critical to this river system, and therefore all but one of the alternatives included treatment at K1. Ms. Kiley asked, in regard to rerouting the flow to K1, how the results related to the source of the flow. Mr. Szymoniak replied that was part of the "next steps". Ms. Kiley asked if the flow out of K1 was changed and whether resulting changes were seen in the surface water concentrations. Mr. Szymoniak replied that station 10 achieved non-detect after some of the flow was changed. Ms. Kiley asked if that was expected. Mr. Szymoniak replied "yes and no". He explained that there was clean water underneath the bog that was entering the bog, and there were portions that might be pulling in contaminated water at the same time. Mr. Szymoniak pointed to a channel that was blocked and the location where flow was added and explained that after two hours that particular point went to non-detect. He noted that this location was not non-detect last week. He explained that the added flow flushed out the channel. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the next steps might include isolating the upwelling, which would include the installation of a monitoring well and additional surface water sampling in the K1 bog. Mr. Szymoniak stated that based on the conceptual model, the EDB was not believed to be upwelling into the bogs, except for K1. He also stated that, assuming the channels were blocked, the contamination would be forced back into the perimeter channel, thereby forcing the water inside the bog to flow into the perimeter channel and not into the river. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the goal was to achieve non-detect at 36SW0002. Mr. Wirsen asked if, when the drive points were done along the perimeters, the assumption was that the contamination was just upwelling where there were lower confined layers of peat. Mr. Szymoniak replied that there were detections along the outside edge, where there was no peat. He noted that groundwater was entering at a depth of approximately four feet. He then stated that the peat was approximately fifteen to thirty feet thick in the interior locations and noted that samples were non-detect in those locations. Mr. Wirsen asked if enough drive point samples were done to identify that all the bogs downgradient of K1 had a peat level of that thickness. Mr. Szymoniak replied that there were also drive points in the lower bog. Agenda Item 3. Clarification/Refinement of Alternatives: Mr. Szymoniak displayed a slide titled "Bog Alternatives Summary". He noted that last week Alternative D, which included the development of a pond, had been ruled out and Alternative F had since been added. Mr. Szymoniak explained that Alternative F included separation of the bogs using either sheet piles or berms, and could be coupled with treatment. He stated that all the alternatives involved some kind of extraction, separation, or interception, and/or treatment. He noted that Alternatives B1 and C1 rely on extraction and treatment at K1, assuming that non-detect could not be reached at K1. Mr. Szymoniak also noted that Alternatives B2 and C2 included treatment at not only K1, but also at K2 and K6. He then stated that Alternative F1 did not include treatment at K1, but rather separation of the bogs, and Alternatives F2a and F2b included separation of the bogs, coupled with treatment. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the difference between Alternatives "B" and "C" was the method of extracting the water. He explained that either interceptor pipes or well points could be used. He commented that the well points were more effective because they provided a barrier to the groundwater contamination that may be entering, however, the well points may not have the longevity of the interceptor pipes. Agenda Item 4. Overview of Matrix of Alternatives: Ms. Balkus distributed a chart titled "Draft FS-1 Quashnet River Bog Alternatives Matrix" (see attachment #2). Mr. Szymoniak explained that this matrix included the following information for each alternative: parcel description, owner, operator, acreage, harvesting, whether or not the bog is isolated from the river, inflow sample locations, results of last sampling event, outflow locations, pros and cons, potential permits required, uncertainty, and cost. The attendees took a moment to briefly review the matrix. Mr. Szymoniak asked if there were any questions regarding the matrix. Ms. Caffyn asked why "No Data Available" appeared under the cost column for Alternative A, when an appraisal had already been done. Ms. Balkus replied that an appraisal had been done for the crop value for a two-year Buy Out and not for the value of the land. She noted that the Buy Out Alternative had not yet been defined and ranged from buying the crop during the time needed for the contamination to be cleaned up, to actually buying the land. Alternative B: Mr. Szymoniak explained that Alternative B included extraction with the use of an interceptor pipe. He stated that there were two options associated with Alternative B. One option would be to intercept and discharge downgradient, with treatment at K1 (Alternative B1). The other option was to intercept using a shallow pipeline and provide treatment of the intercepted water (Alternative B2). Mr. Szymoniak noted that the treatment plant for Alternative B2, which could be located at the K1 bog, would be used to treat the intercepted water before it affected the bog. He stated that, with Alternative B, everything that was intercepted would be treated in order to remove the EDB from the river system. He also mentioned that there was a possibility of building this system in phases. Questions and Comments: Ms. Kiley asked, in regard to Alternative B2, if the treatment would be the same for K1 as for the water that was collected. Mr. Szymoniak replied that it would. Ms. Kiley then asked if the treatment would be either iron filings or GAC. Mr. Szymoniak replied that was correct. He also noted that the passive treatment might not take that entire volume. Ms. Caffyn asked what the different treatments would be for Alternative B. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the purpose of the treatment was to remove the EDB. The treatment could either be passive or active. He explained that active treatment could be GAC. Ms. Caffyn asked how the cost had been determined. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the assumption was made that the treatment would be GAC. He stated that it had been assumed that there would not be any pre-treatment for iron. Ms. Balkus remarked that these designs were conceptual. Alternative C: Mr. Szymoniak noted that Alternative C included shallow well points, located along the perimeter of the bog at a depth of twenty-five feet, which would act as a hydraulic barrier to keep the contaminated water from coming into the bog. He stated that Alternative C1 discharged the water back into either the K5 bog or downgradient, and did not include treatment. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the well points would probably intercept a lot more water, resulting in lower concentrations discharging. He noted that this alternative could also be phased and included treatment at K1 if non-detect could not be achieved at the K1 bog. Mr. Szymoniak stated that Alternative C2 included the installation of interceptor pipe, and treatment at K1, K2, and K6. The water could be discharged back into the K1 bog. Mr. Szymoniak pointed out that the difference between Alternatives B and C was the lack of berms needed for Alternative C. He also stated that Alternative C was probably the only alternative that could return all the bogs back to active production. Mr. Szymoniak noted that the well points required pumps, which required electricity. He recognized the uncertainty regarding the length of operation for this system. Questions and Comments: Ms. Kiley commented that the treated water would be discharged back to K1, and K1 would be treated. She then asked if that water would be treated twice. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the water would not be treated twice. He then explained that a cost assumption was made that the water would be intercepted on Grafton Road in order to avoid affecting the bog itself. He stated that if the concentrations were changed, the water may be intercepted with groundwater wells upgradient of the bog, and then discharged in shallow infiltration trenches in order to maintain the upwelling of clean water in the bog. Mr. Whritenour noted that the useful life of well points was approximately five years. He then asked what the strategy would be to install new well points if in five years, additional treatment were required. Mr. Szymoniak replied that either new well points would need to be installed or a need may be determined to install a pipeline. Alternative D: Mr. Szymoniak reported that Alternative D had been eliminated last week. Alternative E: Mr. Szymoniak described Alternative E as a phased approach. He also reported that last week Alternative E was determined to be so similar to Alternative B that it too had been eliminated. Alternative F: Mr. Szymoniak stated that Alternative F included four options: F1a, F1b, F2a and F2b. He noted that the difference between F1 and F2 was treatment. He explained that Alternative F1 included separation of all the bogs, which would avoid having to treat K1. Mr. Szymoniak stated that Alternative F1a included separation of all the bogs, with the exception of K5, and using sheet piles on the K2 bog and the K6 bog. He noted that the sheet piles resulted in a cut-off wall forcing the contamination to upwell in the perimeter swale. Mr. Szymoniak stated that Alternative F2b included the construction of berms on the bog side to isolate the contamination from the bogs. Mr. Szymoniak listed the advantages of Alternative F as follows: it separated all the bogs from contamination; it was consistent with the long-term goals of the Town of Mashpee; it disconnected the bogs from the river; and it provided for new bog areas outside of the contamination and provided a riparian zone near the bog. Mr. Szymoniak also noted that Alternative F2 gained approximately one new bog acre. He stated that with all the "F" alternatives, most of the bog acreage lost due to the construction of berms would be replaced with upland. Mr. Szymoniak noted that Alternative F2a included treatment of K1 and Alternative F2b included treatment of K1, K2 and K6. Mr. Szymoniak then reviewed the disadvantages of Alternative F. He stated that if berms were constructed there would be long-term settlement of the bog dikes because of the peat deposits. He also noted that a large excavation would be required to build the new bog. He stated that Alternative F1 may not meet the perception criteria because this alternative did not involve treatment. He then said that one acre of bog would be lost with Alternative F1a, approximately three acres of bog would be lost with Alternative F1b, and one acre of bog would be lost with Alternative F2a. Questions and Comments: Mr. Spear asked if there was a comparison of cost for the berms versus the sheet pilings. Mr. Szymoniak replied that driving the sheets would cost approximately $11.00 per square foot, which would result in a cost of approximately $150.00 dollars per linear foot. Ms. Balkus noted that driving the sheets would cost about $1 million dollars and the berms would cost about $0.5 million. Mr. Spear commented that the sheet pilings would not take up as much space, therefore not as much acreage would be lost. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the goal was to make a small berm, with a three to one slope, a four-foot height, and twelve-foot width. He noted that this was factored into the numbers in terms of lost acreage and would be gained back with a new bog. Ms. Miles stated that the "cons" did not include the issue of alternative water. She commented that this was an issue with the Coonamessett bogs and may be an issue with the Quashnet bogs. She said that if the bogs were bermed, water from other sources would be needed for irrigation and flooding purposes. Mr. Szymoniak stated that it would be difficult to get alternative water with Alternative F1. Currently the water for the bogs came from Johns Pond and the western tributary. Mr. Wirsen asked how many acres of upland would be converted into bogs with Alternative F. Mr. Szymoniak replied that in order to create 3.1 acres of bog, approximately 6.7 acres of upland would be disturbed because of the amount of cut required to lay the slopes back. Mr. Wirsen expressed concern that Alternative F relied on the assumption that there was no upwelling in the bog and there were no other sources of contamination heading to the bogs. Mr. Szymoniak stated that it was important that those assumptions were verified while going through the next steps. Mr. Wirsen asked if it would be safer, for the remedial aspect of this project, to move the relocation area out of where there were any known plumes. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the movement would not affect the plume migration. Mr. Schweisberg questioned, given the alternatives that would require an alternative water source and the difficulty with providing that source, whether any of these otherwise feasible alternatives should be eliminated. Mr. Szymoniak stated that from an engineering standpoint it made providing alternative water sources more difficult. He said that water might have to be moved from Johns Pond. He also noted that using water management practices, clean water could be used as a source of flooding because there was so much water upwelling in that area. He also stated that ponding was an option as long as it did not hurt the fish. Mr. Schweisberg asked if a cost estimate had been included, in the event that alternative water were needed from the pond. Mr. Szymoniak replied that currently all the water came from Johns Pond, and therefore there was no cost to bring alternative water. Mr. Spear noted that water was already flowing in from Johns Pond, therefore it was just a matter of delivery of the existing water coming in, into those cells. He stated that the pump and piping system was not that complicated, and the pumps were not that astronomical. Mr. Spear commented that this situation worked a lot more easily than the situation in Falmouth, because there was not the political problem. Mr. Field clarified that it was not so much a question of alternative water supply as much as water delivery. Mr. Szymoniak agreed. Mr. Field provided a summary of the main points expressed thus far:
Agenda Item 5. Discussion: Narrowing the Range of Alternatives: Mr. Sherman asked if Alternative B would return all the bog acreage to active production as Alternative C would do. Mr. Szymoniak replied that Alternative B would not. He said that K1 would be lost with Alternative B. Mr. Sherman then asked if intercepting a large volume to reduce depression would be enough of a hydrological change to affect the hydrology of the tributary coming from the north. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the tributary would not be affected. Mr. Sherman asked a representative of Ocean Spray if any of the alternatives were more likely to result in Ocean Spray’s willingness to purchase the cranberries. Mr. Crooks replied that whichever alternative resulted in the fruit and the water being clean was the one that would result in the fruit being marketable. He added, however, that there was a lot of gray area because of the complexity of the situation, which he said would need to be evaluated in the future. Mr. Sherman noted that the berm concept "raised some eyebrows". Mr. Crooks agreed and explained that to have cranberries growing on one side and EDB flowing freely on the other side was a situation that would create doubt in consumers’ minds. Mr. Sherman then stated that at an earlier date there had been discussions about the concept of buying off-site acreage for cranberry bogs and letting these bogs "go back to nature", while in the mean time compensation would be provided for crop losses until the "new" bogs came into production. He asked if that was still an option. Ms. Balkus replied that the Air Force could not look at all the town and state land and decide what to purchase. She stated that the Air Force had to rely on the input and suggestions from the stakeholders regarding areas that could be turned into bog acreage. She said that considering the numbers for buying out the crop, she did not think this would be in the same "ballpark" as even the most complicated and treatable solutions. Ms. Balkus stated that this option could be added to the list. Mr. Sherman commented that this should be kept as an active alternative. Ms. Kiley asked if a ten-year operation cost or just an installation cost had been assumed when the cost was determined. Ms. Balkus replied that in the absence of knowing what the feasibility study alternative would be, the costs shown in the matrix referred to ten-year operation and maintenance of each of the proposed alternatives. Mr. Whritenour commented that as this process was moving into the "home stretch", he did not have a tremendous degree of confidence in his ability to discern the technical merits among the proposals. He stated that a few preferably avoidable problems had been identified, however, he felt that it might benefit the group to hear suggestions from the Air Force. Ms. Balkus accepted the opportunity to report the Air Force’s recommendations, however, she suggested hearing feedback from the group before "tainting" the group with the Air Forces recommended alternative. Mr. Szymoniak suggested adding to the assumptions, because the intent was to validate those assumptions. Mr. Field then reviewed concerns that had been identified. He stated that Alternative D had been ruled out. He then stated that Ocean Spray had a concern about berming because of the closeness of the EDB water and the bogs. Mr. Crooks added that this was true, however, he said that it may be different if berming were coupled with treatment. Mr. Whritenour stated that the preferred alternative must include treatment in order for the net result to be positive. Mr. Szymoniak asked Mr. Whritenour what he thought the level of treatment would need to be. He explained that from a risk standpoint the level could never be as high as 0.1, however, from a marketability standpoint, the level would have to be non-detect. Mr. Whritenour stated that his answer would have to be non-detect, anything less would become a technological problem. Mr. Hurley expressed concern regarding treatment and impacts on existing hydrology and water quality parameters that were critical for the fish. He said that water that was in violation of surface water quality standards should not be discharged. Mr. Hurley stated that changes in hydrology, temperature, and/or DO were critical factors that could affect the fish populations. He reiterated that he would not want to see major impacts to the natural existing conditions in this area. Ms. Caffyn noted that studies indicated no other contaminated sources. However she maintained that there was a need to be aware of any testing done, and any possible future contamination coming from other sources. She stated that she did not see the purpose of accepting a plan when some unusual source might be identified and all this work would have been for naught. Mr. Szymoniak referred the attendees to the Decision Tree, which listed the assumptions needed to move forward. He listed the assumptions:
Ms. Caffyn asked if Mr. Szymoniak could define from where the Briarwood plume might be coming. Mr. Szymoniak pointed to the area on the map and said that the assumption was that the plume did not affect the bog or the surface water. He also stated in terms of next steps, that it was important to block the channels and force the surface water back to the east, in order for SW0002 to achieve non-detect. Ms. Caffyn asked if any of these alternatives addressed stopping the plume. Ms. Balkus replied that stopping the plume was not being addressed with the bog alternatives. She explained that the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) would determine how to clean up the source area and the upper part of the plumes. Ms. Caffyn asked when the FS was expected to be completed. Ms. Balkus replied that the FS should be completed by October 1998. Ms. Miles asked if one of the objectives of the bog/river separation project was to decrease or eliminate risk to recreational users of the river. Mr. Szymoniak replied that this would be a side benefit. Ms. Miles then asked if there was risk. Mr. Hoda replied that this was not a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) function. Ms. Miles countered that this had not yet been determined. She then stated that it was important to understand the objectives of what was trying to be accomplished. She said that it was clear that there was an objective to separate the bogs and achieve clean surface water for the cranberries. However, she said she also heard that there may be marginal risk to recreational users of the river. Ms. Miles stated that some of the alternatives would address that potential risk, while others would not. Ms. Balkus stated that the FS-1 risk assessment, which was generated under the RI/FS process, did show a marginal risk if someone were to install a well in the area and ingest the groundwater or if the recreational fishermen were to ingest the fish they caught. She noted that the intent of the bog alternative was to manage human health risk and to bring the bogs back into production. Ms. Balkus stated that there was a side benefit, however, in that some of the alternatives would decrease the risk to the fishermen. She added that if the EDB levels in the river were decreased via treatment, then the fish levels would be lower. Ms. Kiley stated that it was her understanding that the FS would address the body of the groundwater plume as well as look at alternatives for surface water. She commented that perhaps that was where the risk could be evaluated. Mr. Field asked if part of the RI/FS process could address surface water contamination through treatment, for the fishermen. Ms. Balkus replied that this was what the FS would consider. She stated that the intent of the RI/FS process was to reduce any identified risk. She also noted that the RI/FS parameters considered risk drivers that were set up by the regulatory agencies and the reduction of those risks to acceptable levels. She added that those levels might not be low enough for the Ocean Spray perception issue, which was why this project was a "stop gap" measure in addition to the RI/FS process. Mr. LaFleur asked Ms. Balkus to define "RI/FS". Ms. Balkus replied that RI/FS stood for remedial investigation/feasibility study. Mr. LaFleur asked if a plan was being developed for the cleanup of FS-1, and if so, when it was expected to be released. Mr. Hoda replied that the RI report was issued on July 20, 1998, and the FS, which actually addressed the remedial alternatives, would be issued on October 14, 1998. Mr. LaFleur asked if there was a recommendation for an extraction well or well fence in the RI/FS. Mr. Hoda replied that he had not yet seen the report, however, each alternative would be evaluated. Mr. LaFleur then asked which option best fit into the RI/FS with the overall objective of cleaning up the plume. Ms. Balkus replied that all of the alternatives being presented today were conceptualized to be compatible with whatever potential alternatives were to come out of the RI/FS. She stated that there was a focus on the portion of the plume in the proximal area of the bog and that treatment around K1 included some moderately shallow extraction wells along Grafton Road. Ms. Balkus noted that the FS, should it determine that an extraction well system was required, would more likely be further upgradient, near the source area of the FS-1 plume. Mr. Schweisberg asked if the objective of this project was to achieve non-detect in the surface water so that as much of the cranberry bogs as possible could be returned to marketable production. Ms. Balkus replied that part of the determination was whether or not non-detect would be achieved. She explained that this was why there were treatment options and non-treatment options. Ms. Balkus stated that the Air Force did not set the standards. She also stated that she was trying to balance the criteria for what was needed in order to: meet cranberry production and marketability, maintain compatibility with the fish habitat, and avoid infringing on any wetlands area. Mr. Schweisberg noted that the fish issue and the wetlands issue were possible adverse effects from devising schemes to reach the objectives. He commented that it was his understanding that the overlying objective was to get marketable cranberries as soon as possible. He also stated that the industry’s primary players controlling that issue have stated that they wanted non-detect in the surface water. Mr. Schweisberg asked whether his understanding was correct. Ms. Balkus replied that if the surface waters were separated from the bogs, there was no need to have non-detect in the river channel because the bogs would get clean water from Johns Pond. She also said that if the river channel were used to provide water to the bog, then yes, it would have to be non-detect. Mr. Schweisberg asked if the overall objective was to separate contaminated water from the plants and the berries, regardless of how that goal was attained. Ms. Balkus replied that this was correct. Mr. Szymoniak agreed. Mr. Field asked if there were any other assumptions to be added to the list. Mr. Szymoniak suggested adding the overlying assumption that the water inside the active portion of the bog was non-detect. Mr. Field commented that Ocean Spray had a concern about whether berming alone would be acceptable with the perception issue. Mr. Szymoniak clarified that Ocean Spray felt that treatment, in conjunction with the berming, might be acceptable. Mr. Field asked if there were any preferences regarding the alternatives. Ms. Balkus said that she would like to hear what the stakeholders wanted. She wondered if they wanted the Air Force to "do something" or "do nothing". Ms. Balkus went on to say that if the stakeholders did want the Air Force to "do something" then she needed to know if they want the water to be separated from the bogs, or to be intercepted. If interception were chosen, then she needed to know if the water should be treated or not. Ms. Caffyn commented that the Town of Mashpee had asked its’ two consultants, Foothills Engineering and Woodard and Curren, to do an in-depth review of all of the alternatives. She stated that it would be premature on her part, and for the Town of Mashpee, to decide on a preferred alternative at this time. Ms. Caffyn stated that this was highly technical and the Town of Mashpee needed to be represented by a technical person. She noted that Mr. William Fisher would be investigating this issue within the next week or two. Mr. Sherman reported that he had reviewed these matters with the Mashpee Conservation Commission and it was clear that the Commission did not wish to choose a specific alternative recommendation today as it was waiting to look at the independent review by the town consultant. Mr. Sherman also stated that it was clear that "No Action" was not an alternative, unless the federal government was going to financially take care of both the Town of Mashpee’s and Mr. Handy’s lost revenues for the long-term. He stated that should one of these alternatives be chosen, the Conservation Commission’s interests (the fisheries, recreation and general wildlife habitat) would need to be considered. Mr. Sherman also remarked that if treatment were part of the alternative, then it would have to result in no significant change in water temperature, DO or any other parameters that affect the fisheries. He noted that Ocean Spray had clearly indicated that it would provide compensation in the future for the crops, only if treatment were used. Mr. Sherman felt that at this point there was some direction, however, he did not know how far the town could go at this time in terms of choosing a preferred alternative. Ms. Balkus commented that she was frustrated. She said that she needed feedback from the stakeholders, yet she was hearing the same comments made at the last meeting. She apologized that the stakeholders had to re-state their positions. She also noted that the Air Force had incorporated the concerns and suggestions of the stakeholders into the alternatives. She said that if the Air Force designed a treatment plant, it would take into consideration what impacts there may be on the hydrology and the extraction wells; it would not be located in an area that would draw down the brook trout spawning habitats; and it would take into consideration the DO and temperature. Ms. Balkus explained that she was frustrated because she was not hearing that any of the alternatives could be eliminated. Mr. Field listed the opinions he had heard expressed, which ruled out some pieces of some of the alternatives:
Mr. Szymoniak noted that F1 had been eliminated, because berming alone would not be acceptable. He asked if the group agreed that discharging without treatment was not acceptable. The attendees agreed. Mr. Szymoniak stated that Alternative B1 was therefore not acceptable, unless the levels could be dropped low enough. Mr. Whritenour suggested, based on the information provided today, that Alternative B1 be eliminated because it involved interception without treatment. Ms. Balkus noted that Alternative B1 included treatment for K1. Ms. Miles commented that it was true that Alternative B1 included a very small treatment at K1. However, contaminated water would be intercepted and collected at K2 and discharged to K5 without treatment, which was true for both Alternative C1 and Alternative B1. She remarked that this was not acceptable from a public acceptability standpoint, and she was unsure that it was acceptable to the regulatory agencies. Ms. Miles asked if the Air Force was expecting to intercept a lot of clean water that would mix in if its plan was to simply intercept, collect, and discharge. Mr. Szymoniak replied that was correct and stated that was the key assumption. He also noted that the data gaps would consider what actually was coming up. Mr. Szymoniak referred to the drive point data and pointed to locations of non-detect on the map. He noted that there was clean water above the plume that was also trying to come into the bogs. Ms. Miles asked if the interceptor pipe would not only collect what was currently upwelling, but draw in some of that clean water. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the interceptor pipe would not draw water into it. He explained that the pipeline would be located below the ditch, therefore it was probable that clean water would make it to the pipeline. Ms. Miles noted that there was a line of water upwelling near the border of K2 and asked why the levels being found in the pipe would be any different than what was being detected along that border. Mr. Szymoniak replied that those channels had not been blocked and some of the clean water that was upwelling might still be going out to the river. He mentioned that some contaminated water might also be going out to the river. He then explained that the channels needed to be blocked in order to determine the concentration that would be intercepted. He agreed that the concentration at the outlet should be the same concentration seen by the pipeline and added that currently that may not be representative because the channels were not blocked off. Ms. Miles remarked that Alternative C1 seemed to be full of uncertainty and she questioned how much people wanted to carry this alternative forward and wait for the data. Mr. Szymoniak stated that what data would be needed was a matter of how the alternative would be implemented. Ms. Miles commented that even if a decision were made today to move forward with this alternative, many questions still needed to be answered. She noted that there was more certainty with treatment alternatives. Mr. Szymoniak agreed, noting however, that it was necessary to deal with other influences as well. Mr. Field summarized that the group was leaning against Alternatives C1 and B1 because they did not include treatment, which provided more certainty. Therefore, if a choice were made today, it would probably lean more toward Alternative B2 or C2. Ms. Caffyn noted that she was hoping to hear the Air Force’s preferred alternative. Mr. Spear stated that a modified Alternative F2 combined the best opportunity of all the various points of view. He noted that there would be exclusion, treatment, and a lot of side benefits. Mr. Spear also commented that the treatment would not be as technical or uncertain as with Alternative C. Ms. Balkus remarked that she had heard from the US EPA, the Town of Mashpee, the Mashpee Conservation Commission, and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). She then asked if the MassDEP and the growers could provide some feedback. Ms. Kiley stated that the MassDEP would not provide its preference because it was unsure of its authority, whether acting under Superfund under CERCLA, or strictly from the standpoint of the wetlands regulations. She explained that, depending on how this process continued, the MassDEP would be involved in different ways. She also said that the MassDEP was in favor of getting the bogs back into production as soon as possible, intercepting the plume before it reached the bogs, and dealing with the upwelling. She stated that the MassDEP would not voice a preference until more was known in terms of the authority. Mr. Handy said that he understood Ms. Balkus’ frustration. He stated that he had been dealing with this issue in Falmouth for two years and in Mashpee for a year and had detected "foot dragging". Mr. Handy stated his preference for a combination of Alternatives F2 and C2. He reiterated that treatment was necessary. He also noted that there were decent plans being considered to move forward and he suggested doing just that. Mr. Bicky observed that there had been a lot of discussion from people saying that they did not want to endorse a particular plan. He suggested that, from the standpoint of reaching a consensus, it would be helpful to drop out the alternatives to which people had objections, and retain those proposed plans, subject to regulation and other issues, that could be dealt with. Mr. Bicky stated that he was supportive of being pro-active on this issue. He also emphasized the importance of dealing with the issue of the cranberry bogs and dealing with the interception of the FS-1 plume in another venue. Mr. Field commented that "No Action" might be a possibility if it entailed Buy Out compensation to the growers and the town. He also commented that Alternative B2 and C2 were still on the table, and given what Mr. Handy said, Alternative C2 was preferred over Alternative B2 because of the shallow well points. Mr. Field remarked that Alternative F2 modified and/or combined with Alternative B2 or C2 might make sense as well. He added that part of the Buy Out question might be whether it was possible to do some kind of off-set or replacement. Mr. Field summarized that Alternative A, Alternatives B2 and C2, and Alternative F2 were still on the table. He commented that after today’s discussion, a modified Alternative F2 might look the best. Ms. Balkus noted her appreciation of the feedback and her understanding that there were uncertainties and that other factors needed to be considered. She stressed the intent to move forward and asked Mr. Szymoniak to walk through the Air Force’s preferred alternative, Alternative F2a. Mr. Szymoniak reported that Alternative F2a was the preferred alternative of the Air Force. Alternative F2a included treatment of the K1 bog, and berming of the K2 and K6 bogs. The K6 bog would then have non-detect water, as would the K2, K3, and K4 bogs. Mr. Szymoniak stated that the K5 bog would be lost, however, a new bog would be built. He explained that water would be treated at K1 via a shallow or moderately deep extraction fence, and reinjected shallowly to get water back into the K1 bog. He further explained that the extraction fence would cut off the plume to prevent it from coming into the K1 bog, the reinjection would avoid changing the hydraulic characteristics of the K1 bog. He also noted that the temperature and DO would remain the same. Mr. Szymoniak said that the bog would be separated, and that depending on the concentrations, additional treatment could be implemented. He reiterated that Alternative F2a was the preferred alternative of the Air Force. Mr. Field asked if it was correct that there would be treatment at K1 only and not at K2 and K3. Mr. Szymoniak replied it was. Ms. Kiley asked if the Air Force would consider additional treatment as part of Alternative F2. Ms. Balkus replied that if the concentrations at stations 200 or 201 needed treatment, the existing treatment plant could be expanded. Ms. Kiley then asked if it was correct that treatment being considered was solely treatment at K1 and that the treatment at K1 could be expanded to intercept more of the upwelling. Mr. Szymoniak replied that this was correct. Ms. Kiley also asked if additional treatment at K2 or K6 was being considered. Mr. Szymoniak replied that it was not. He stated that it was hoped that the water would be intercepted where the concentrations were fairly low. Mr. Schweisberg asked what the Air Force would do if its hopes were not met. Mr. Szymoniak replied that the bog would be cut off with the berm and the water would be intercepted with the pipeline. Mr. Schweisberg again asked, if the hopes were not met, would the Air Force consider "Alternative F2a" where another line of treatment would be added to capture that additional contaminated water and treat it to non-detect. Ms. Balkus replied that if treatment were added to Alternative F2a, the result would be Alternative F2b. She stated that the intent behind the Air Force’s preferred alternative was to minimize any hydrological impacts while including treatment at K1. She also said that the Air Force would propose doing this in a phased manner. She explained that if F2a were implemented and there were not acceptable levels going down the river, F2b would be the "fall back" plan. Mr. Field asked if it was correct to say that Alternative F2a would achieve non-detect through the active treatment system, however, as the water came further down there was a possibility that the level of EDB might still be between maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and non-detect. Ms. Balkus replied that this was correct. Mr. Field then stated that the question was whether that was acceptable and noted that generally a preference leaning toward non-detect had been expressed. Ms. Caffyn said that she hoped this was not a final solution and noted that Ms. Balkus had referred to this project as a "stop gap" measure. She said that the Town of Mashpee would want interception of the plume to be part of the entire process. She also stated that she was wary of choosing this particular plan with the assumption that it could be the final solution to the plume. Ms. Balkus assured Ms. Caffyn that this was not the final remedy. She stated that the FS was ongoing and would be delivered in October 1998, and that the analysis of alternatives was currently being done. She stated that that was the mechanism by which the final remedy would be selected. Mr. Spear asked whether Alternative F2a could achieve non-detect. Mr. Szymoniak replied that this was not yet known. He stated that once the channels were blocked off, the concentrations would go down. He also said that the next steps included blocking the channel and installing the monitoring wells, at which point those concentrations could be known. Mr. Spear remarked that it seemed as though the Air Force did not want to make a final decision between Alternative F2a and F2b until more data were received, however, those two alternatives were compatible enough that if the data went one way, one direction could be taken, and if the data went the other way, the other direction could be taken. He commented that the final decision would be based on what the data showed. Ms. Balkus stated that Mr. Spears’ understanding was correct. She explained that, for example, if the consensus were to go with Alternative F2, then the project would start with Alternative F2a, and depending on the data, possibly go into Alternative F2b. She noted that the group was coming close to expressing a preference for Alternative F2, however, more information was needed. Ms. Miles clarified, to address Ms. Caffyn’s concerns that this may be the final solution, that there was an ongoing RI/FS for the FS-1 plume, in which the RI risk had been identified for the groundwater pathway to residential users. She explained that this action could not be the final solution because it did not address groundwater. Ms. Miles acknowledged that the Air Force’s preferred alternative was F2a. However, she noted that the group seemed to be seeking a documented commitment from the Air Force that if Alternative F2a proved unsatisfactory, a contingency remedy would be implemented to which the Air Force would also be committed. She noted that the group would then need to agree to the criteria that would take this process from Alternative F2a to Alternative F2b, which might be a "sticky" point. Mr. Sherman asked should Alternative F2a or F2b be chosen, whether it would be assumed that Mr. Handy and the Town of Mashpee would be compensated for the loss of the K5 section until the time that the new bog area reached full productivity. Ms. Balkus replied that this question would need to be addressed. Mr. Sherman then remarked that Alternative A, while not a real preference, should remain on the table. He said that the Buy Out Alternative would need to remain an option in the event that none of the systems worked or in the event that the Brairwood plume upwelled into the abandoned bog. Mr. Field summarized the opinions expressed:
Ms. Kiley commented that many of the issues mentioned applied to any of the alternatives. Mr. Handy stated that he would choose Alternative C2. He felt that the perception problem would remain with Alternative F2, with the contaminated water in close proximity to the bog. Ms. Balkus stated that F2b included additional treatment. Mr. Szymoniak added that this might be accomplished using the pipe, in Alternative B2 or using well points, in Alternative C2. Mr. Handy commented that the shallow well points appealed to him. He also stated that treatment was necessary. Mr. Szymoniak noted that Alternative F2b included treatment of the entire area. Mr. Handy stated that was his preference. Ms. Miles asked if it were correct that Alternative F2a would be implemented first, and Alternative F2b would be implemented as a contingency. She said that Mr. Handy did not appear to prefer that option. Mr. Handy agreed. Mr. Szymoniak asked if it were correct that, from a perception standpoint, it would be unacceptable to have a berm, and EDB in the channel on the other side of the bog. Mr. Handy agreed that this was correct. Mr. Sherman asked when the decision would be made as to whether CERCLA applied. Ms. Balkus replied that there was a meeting scheduled for tomorrow (September 22, 1998) with the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence’s (AFCEE) senior management and the attorney staff. She said that it was hoped that the outcome of that meeting would be a decision. Mr. Hurley remarked that Alternative F had long term benefits for the fisheries, which was something he wanted to see. He then noted that there would be a dependency on power with any high tech solution. He pointed out that, in the event of a hurricane causing a power failure, a backup power source would be needed, otherwise the fisheries could be wiped out. He felt that Alternative F was a "lower technology" solution and was therefore a bit more dependable. Mr. Hurley said that he leaned against Alternative C and toward Alternative F. Mr. LaFleur suggested a combination of Alternative C and Alternative F. He said that although there may not be a long-term benefit to the fisheries, the long-term benefit of cleaning up the plume needed to be the primary objective, as well as providing clean water to the growers. Mr. Field noted that there were still uncertainties in terms of permitting, regulatory authority, timing, and limitations associated with whatever process needed to be followed. Ms. Kiley noted that F2b included treatment, however, the treatment, whether it be a pipe or shallow extraction well, would be similar to Alternative B2 or C2. Mr. Szymoniak noted that it would be intercepted. He explained that the interceptor would be removed from the swale, a sump would be created, and the water would be pumped back to the treatment plant and treated. He stated that the collector would be the swale, however, it could be a pipe or shallow well points. Agenda Item 6. Summary and Concluding Remarks: Mr. Szymoniak reviewed the next steps. He stated that there were additional unknowns that needed to be clarified. He also noted that a work plan would be developed, new wells would be installed, and air and surface water sampling would be conducted on a monthly basis as would discharge measurements. Ms. Kiley asked if next steps included seep sampling. Mr. Szymoniak replied that seep sampling might be impractical because there were so many seeps. He also noted that not all of the water in the channels in the K1 bog was contaminated. Mr. Szymoniak remarked that it was necessary to verify assumptions and to ensure that there were no other sources entering the bog. He said that part of the underlying assumption was that there was no other contamination in the bogs. He said that the bog ditches would be blocked, thereby forcing the swale water to go back into the perimeter, at which point the concentrations would be measured. Mr. LaFleur asked if that assumption could be verified now. Mr. Szymoniak replied that it could. Mr. LaFleur then asked whether that process would be started. Mr. Szymoniak replied that it was necessary to make sure everyone was aware of how that process would be done. He said that the Air Force would work with the Conservation Commission, the growers and the fisheries to ensure there were no impacts, with the idea in mind that this would be a short-term implementation. Mr. Szymoniak also mentioned that modeling would be conducted and that an "Action Memorandum" would be prepared. Mr. Field asked what the stakeholders could expect in terms of AFCEE responding to the preferences stated. Ms. Balkus replied that, since a conclusion had not been reached in terms of an alternative, nothing could be designed yet. She said that the Air Force would wait for feedback from the Selectmen’s consultant (Foothills Engineering) and would welcome any other comments forwarded to her in the interim. Ms. Balkus also said that she hoped that tomorrow’s meeting would result in a decision regarding the legal authority. Mr. Szymoniak added that a lot of this work could be done once the work plan was submitted. He noted that the modeling was currently being done under the FS, which was expected by the middle of October 1998. Mr. Field asked to whom the workplan would go. Mr. Szymoniak replied that it would go to all the stakeholders. Mr. Field stated that any comments or concerns should be forwarded to AFCEE. Ms. Balkus thanked everyone for their time and for attending this meeting and said that she looked forward to continuing to work together. Agenda Item 7. Adjourn: Mr. Field adjourned the meeting at 11:15 A.M.
|
